I have found nothing except the so-called alleged "manipulation"
that you speak of - that is usually nebulous, vague, without a source - in a
word, unsubstantial.

One would think that a person committed to the
truth would show the truth and defend it citing sources. I have found none.

More to the point, however - 1973 - it has now been nearly forty
years and if the truth that indeed the DSM regarding homosexuality was valid, as
you argue, it would be more upfront and people with logical, scientific,
professional purposes.

What good, I ask, did the prior labeling as a
DSM have before? In fact, it had the opposite effect. Shame for treating gay
people so.

22ozn44ozglassSouthern Utah, UT

April 26, 2011 3:37 p.m.

Jaime Lee Bonberger: I commend you for bringing up the way in which the gay
activists manipulated, intimidated, and practiced deception to facilitate the
change in the DSM regarding homosexuality being a mental disorder in 1973.
Those who were at the head of this movement openly bragged that this change was
NOT due to a mountain of paradigm changing research. They openly admit that it
was a change brought about by activisim and political pressure.

I
recommend everyone who is interested in the truth regarding the events and
reasons for the APA changing its stance on homosexuality being a mental disoder
do some indepth reading from sources other than gay actisits. Study the role of
the NGTF and thir role in this change to the DSM in 1973

The APA
vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM was rushed and only 1/3 of the voting
members actually voted. In addition, Four years later, the Medical Journal
Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing 69 percent of psychiatrists
disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexual.

In the last
ten years, the APA published a pro-pedophile study. After caving into public
pressure, Exec director Fowler denounced the study.

Vince hereSan Diego, CA

April 25, 2011 10:15 p.m.

The ultimate irony is that a representative of an organization that purports to
defend families, marriages, and traditional values, as they would call them,
would also mis-represent, lie, distort, confuse, obfuscate, and then,
ultimately, play the victim afterwards.

Values are good, of course.
So are families, Traditions are also good.

Lies are not.

All the while, history is being repeated - it is a common line of reasoning,
among proponents of marginalization, to use the line that - it cannot possibly
succeed because it did not succeed before, unless you cause detriment to the
society.

It was so with women's liberation, emancipation, civil
rights, etc. The arguments in history were always that citizens should be wary
because of "unintended consequences."

The only consequences
are the intended ones - equality.

Rae M.Taylorsville, UT

April 24, 2011 10:57 p.m.

To Pagan: 1.Notice how people talk about how gay marriage will harm
straight marriage but never give examples?" yes, Pagan, and why is that?
The answer seems obvious to me. Im sure its because few societies in history
have ever attempted it, and one that did was annihilated. I would like You to
find examples of gay unions that succeeded or failed 100 years ago.2. I
disagree with you on another point; gay people can be a minority AND gaining
support at the same time. I always find this kind of twisted thinking when I
read your posts. Sorry, but if they were based on reality, the rest of your
words could be trusted.

MormoncowboyProvo, Ut

April 24, 2011 4:05 p.m.

I'm not sure I get why this woman is taken seriously? It almost sounds like she
is lamenting the marginalization of racists??? She is pointing to them and
saying, "see, see, we're next!".

It's an interesting
comparison indeed, seeing as how her Christian faith's leaders once taught that
the divine penalties for interracial marriage was in fact, death. I don't think
she has thought her comments through carefully enough.

Concerned and InvolvedSpanish Fork, UT

April 24, 2011 11:52 a.m.

@RanchHand

No, temptation does not equal sin. Every single person is
tempted to do many things, but they do not always choose to act upon those
temptations. I know individuals who have thoughts about lying, but have not
lied. I know individuals who have been tempted to steal, but have not. And, yes,
my friend, I even know individuals who are tempted to engage in homosexual acts,
but do not.

The fact that anyone (and I know several) can change
his/her sexual orientation should quiet those of the genetic born,
immutable/unchangeable argument that underscores much of the recent debates.

I arrived at the UCLA study through a series of links about a year ago.
I looked at the Williams Institute website and did not see the study. The study
in question highlighted the relative advantages to children raised by same-sex
as opposed to a heterosexual parents/adults. It admitted that children are much
more likley to experiment with homosexuality in a same-sex household, but girls
would be homosexual at about the same rate regardless of the sexual orientation
of the parents, while boys would be more likely to be homosexual. This last
result was buried in one of their tables and was not discussed in the paper,
IIRC. The error term was slightly inflated due to the large differences in other
results, but this one was significant.

You are free to reject this
claim if you wish. I will keep looking for it and next time will record the
reference.

Cheers.

WastintimeLos Angeles, CA

April 23, 2011 6:04 p.m.

re:Jamie Lee BonbergerDr. Robert Spitzer disavowed the way his research
has been used by such groups as Focus on the Family etc. He said, in an
interview "what they (FoF) fail to mention in the discussion I noted it was
so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that although
change is possible I have to conclude it is quite rare." He also said he
disagrees with FoF and is quite unhappy with FoF use of his study and said that
the likelihood of change is quite small.

Can you provide the title
of the article by UCLA professors regarding the incidence of homosexuality in
children raised by homosexuals? Did the study look at biological children of
homosexuals vs. adoptive/non-bio children?

Jaime Lee BonbergerHouston, TX

April 23, 2011 2:24 p.m.

For those saying that the NOM was founded by the Mormon Church, please provide
your references, or is it a "faith promoting rumor" to comfort the pro
gay crowd? Thanks.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the architect of the 1973
decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative
psychiatrist , and a long time supporter of gay rights, stated the following:
"I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them,
they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's
news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be
sustained".

Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the APA, cited by
the APA as a champion of homosexuals, criticized the APA for barring
reorientation therapy for homosexuals. He called it unethical to prevent such
treatment. "If the client wants a change, listen to the client...you're
barring research." He also called the APA unethical and unprofessional for
barring contrary voices in the discussion about the APA's stance on the
treatment of homosexuality.

Jaime Lee BonbergerHouston, TX

April 23, 2011 1:41 p.m.

Idaho Coug:

Please provide the reference, and the genome regions and
sequences that have been positively identified with same-sex attraction. I
personally know several people who consider themselves ex-gay and are doing just
fine in heterosexual relationships. I will likely be attacked in these DN
comments for this revelation, but it is true in flesh and blood.

Also, statistics do not show that that children from same sex parent homes are
gay at the same rate as the national average. For boys, it is statistically
higher. This was part of an overall study by two UCLA professors, pro-gay I
might add, whose main emphasis was the advantages of same-sex parenting. The
results are available on line.

Many European nations have shied away
from calling same-sex unions "marriage", and seem to be doing fine.

The American gay lobby, however, seeks to marginalize all those who
disagree with them and stifle their voices. This is not by happenstance. Please
refer to the 1989 book, "After the Ball (Doubleday) by Marshall Kirk and
Hunter Madsen. It is a well laid out strategy that we see being executed before
our very eyes.

Uncle CharlesWhere freedom and liberty reign, utah

April 23, 2011 12:32 p.m.

@atl: I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. If homosexuals want to go romp with
each other so be it. What I don't have to do is accept it and the state doesn't
have to condone it with a piece of paper. And we certainly don't have to teach
that homosexuality is something positive to be embraced in our schools.

As you asked....who is forcing others?

@KGB: choice in behavior is
not a civil right. It's laughable that homosexuals try to tie themselves to the
cause of blacks and women. Completely laughable.

@Bubble: Christ did
speak about homosexuality. He condemned it. He also state that man and woman
should leave their parents and become one. Just how does man with man or woman
with woman become one? Biology 101 says it can't be.

----

So if homosexuals are born that way and aren't responsible for their choices,
who is responsible for their choices and why?

Maybe liars, murderers,
thieves, adulterers, fornicators, covetors, the envious are all born that way.
They didn't choose to do those things they had no choice in the matter. It's all
God's fault, right?

Uncle CharlesWhere freedom and liberty reign, utah

April 23, 2011 12:23 p.m.

@Sank You, Doctor: Many people have many attractions to different things. The
problem is acting on the attractions we are not supposed to. The LDS church has
never stated that homosexuality is a born trait, ever.

2 men being
together or 2 women will never, ever be the same as a mother and father with
their family. Or do you deny the differences between man and woman?

@teri88: you are making strawman arguments with your AOF12 posting. No one is
telling homosexuals they can't believe what they want. What is being stated is
that the state does not have to legally recognize their behavior. Can you see
the difference between the 2?

It's ironic you are telling God that
His ideal doesn't work in our society so man should come up with something that
is acceptable to man. Silliness. You don't lower the bar because people aren't
meeting it, you educate them until they do.

The standard was set in
the Garden of Eden: man and woman married for eternity. If you don't know how
the Law of Moses was fulfilled you need to get back to church and learn.

thriver7Salt Lake, Utah

April 23, 2011 10:09 a.m.

The expert witness opposed to gay marriage in the court case that was heavily
funded by the LDS church had to admit that by supporting gay couples to marry,
statistics show that it improves the quality of life not only of the individuals
but also of their community. He went so far as to say: "When America
accepts gay marriage we will be more American." -

This is the
guy AGAINST gay marriage.

The problem: no one can demonstrate how gay
marriage damages society. Has Massachusetts collapsed? Canada? Spain? Argentina?
Heterosexual people didn't stop getting married and having babies in these
places when the law changed.

This is the mission statement of Deseret
Media "treating all with dignity, respect, humility and integrity."
Seems to me that is what gay folks are asking for: to not be treated as second
class citizens, to be welcomed into the human family, to receive the same 1100
or so federal benefits given to married folks.

The more we reject
them - the louder they'll get.

22ozn44ozglassSouthern Utah, UT

April 22, 2011 9:55 p.m.

"*After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest
state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09'Massachusetts
retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state"

Given the thousands of non MA resident gay couples who come to Massachusetts
to get married and then return to other states, unless the MA divorce rate
includes a longitudinal tracking of the current state(divorced,separated,
annulled) of all the non-resident gay MA marriages it would be an abuse of
statistics to repeatedly quote these statistics and then infer that SSM did not
increase the divorce rate in MA and that SSM/legal partnerships have an equal or
lower divorce rate than heterosexual marriages.

However, studies in
two other countries with a longer history of SSM/legal partnerships do in fact
reveal that SSM/legal partnerships have a signficantly higher divorce rate than
do traditional marriages.

Until you can prove that the MA divorce
rate statitics include tracking all of the non-resident SSM's for divorce, the
statics you repeatedly quote must be held suspect

Kevin J. KirkhamSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 9:46 p.m.

Belching Cow | 3:11 p.m. April 22, 2011 Sandy, UT @Kevin Kirkam"If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should
sterile/infertile couples be allowed to marry?"Yes"Why"Because the marriage is for a man and woman couple.

KJK - So, the bottom line is that you have no logical rebuttal. As long
as the couple is a man and a woman, that's all that matters. Where is the
logical backing? If marriage is about producing kids, the aforementioned
heterosexuals have no need of marriage since they can't produce kids. Why do
they need state sanctioning? How are their needs for state sanctioning any
different than those of same-sex couples?

Disallowing same-sex
marriage harms same-sex families and especially the kids. How can we LDS claim
that we are pro-family when we are pushing laws that harm familes and children?

22ozn44ozglassSouthern Utah, UT

April 22, 2011 9:05 p.m.

I will make my questions a little more plain and direct.

1. Those who
practice intergenerational sexual relationships state that they were born with
these desires and that they have no choice. What is the gay rebutal to this
claim?

2. If being homosexual is not a choice and therefore having
gay marriage is a civil right, and constitutionally granted and protected, how
do gay activists counter those who practice and/or advocate intergenerational
sexual relationships and intergenerational marriage because they were allegedly
born with the biological, psychological or genetic programing that dictates this
lifestyle and desires to have their marriages made legal and recognized?

3. How do gays rebut those people who practice and seek
intergenerational sexual relationships and marriage plan to change the
definition of marriage to accommodate their lifestyle and preference?

4. Why did ILGA wait until 1994 and the fallout from a Congressional review of
UN funding to expel NAMBLA?

5. Why are gay activists now so set on
distancing themselves from their stated platforms of the 70's which included
repealing all laws and statutes regarding the gender,number and age of persons
who may enter into marriage.

Answers not ad hominem.

Legal EagleSpanish Fork, UT

April 22, 2011 3:14 p.m.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society. Giving a stamp
of approval to anything else will put holes in your foundation and if continued
will fail.

I lived in Baltimore for several months, and saw the
effects of a society where a huge number of people were not married. It was
really sad. Problems don't stand in line for their turn to be dealt with. They
multiply and make each other worse.

If your mother and father aren't
married, you have a significantly higher chance of committing crime, doing
drugs, living on welfare, and otherwise failing to be a positive influence on
America. Are you doomed to fail? Of course not. But the sad fact is without a
Mom and a Dad, you have a much tougher life ahead.

Men and women
are made for eachother. Emotionally, socially, and biologically. One cannot be
complete without the other. I know this from personal experience.

If
you are dealing with gay tendencies, you have a challenge that you may or may
not overcome in this life. Desiring something does not make it good for you or
socially acceptable. (No matter what others say.)

"Should couples who refuse to have children have their
marriage licenses revoked since they aren't "contributing to society"
any more than a same-sex couple?"

No

"Should
women over the age of 50 be allowed to re-marry since they won't be producing
any children?"

Yes, if they are getting married to a man.

"Why do they need to be married?"

I don't know.
Maybe you should ask one.

"If a gay couple has kids from either
adoption, previous "straight" relationships, rape,
"inheriting" them from a deceased sibling, etc...should they be denied
marriage?

Yes

"Would those kids be harmed if their
"parents" aren't married?"

They will be harmed if
their parents are gay, married or not.

"Are the kids of straight
couples harmed if their parents aren't married?"

yes

"Why the difference?"

Because one of the marriages is
between a man and a woman. The other is an immoral union between people of the
same sex.

Legal EagleSpanish Fork, UT

April 22, 2011 3:08 p.m.

Every person has the freedom to choose their path. Once chosen, we each get to
enjoy the consequences of those actions.

If you want to get married
in Utah, find someone of the opposite sex you are compatible with and get
married.

If you want a gay relationship, that is your choice, don't
try to force society to accept your choice as a good one.

Kevin J. KirkhamSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 1:40 p.m.

If gays can't marry because they can't produce kids, should sterile/infertile
couples be allowed to marry? Why?

Should couples who refuse to have
children have their marriage licenses revoked since they aren't
"contributing to society" any more than a same-sex couple?

Should women over the age of 50 be allowed to re-marry since they won't be
producing any children? Why do they need to be married?

If a gay
couple has kids from either adoption, previous "straight"
relationships, rape, "inheriting" them from a deceased sibling,
etc...should they be denied marriage? Would those kids be harmed if their
"parents" aren't married? Are the kids of straight couples harmed if
their parents aren't married? Why the difference?

In our secular
government, marriage is a civil contract and the Savior said that we should
render unto Caesar the things of Caesar. Giving CIVIL standing by our CIVIL
government regarding CIVIL rights is clearly a matter of our CIVIL government
and therefore not any business of the church. Remember, the scriptures forbid
us from using our religious opinions to harm the liberties of others. Why do we
keep insisting on doing so?

jasonlivyOrem, UT

April 22, 2011 1:39 p.m.

Accept Gay Marriage, and then what? Will it stop there?

The answer is
a frightening, but emphatic, NO! Once this is condoned, then we will be labeled
a bigot if we don't accept the homosexual behavior completely.

My
biggest issue with this whole debate is that so many acquaint this to race. The
mere fact that we believe the act of homosexuality is morally wrong
automatically qualifies us as bigots. There is no discussion. There is no
reasoning. If we don't agree with those who have chosen this lifestyle, we are
bigots...period.

They will have zero proof that those who are gay
actually have no choice in the matter. Almost every person I know who's gay has
consciously made a choice after being involved for many years in a heterosexual
family relationship involving children. They've been swayed by the current
manmade fallacy that desires and passions are to be explored and pursued. Do
whatever makes you feel good...

I will never accept the act of
homosexuality. It's a violation of the eternal laws of God! These laws govern
the universe and we must abide by them or face the consequences...

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

April 22, 2011 12:51 p.m.

Concerned and Involved | "RanchHand, I am not a bigot. In fact, ...
I simply stated that one can choose to not act upon certain
temptations."

IMO, Living any other life than the one God gave
me to live would be "sin". I don't adhere to your belief system.
Therefore, why should it apply to me?

---"I will
reconsider my position on gay marriage when there are examples of gay couples
"waiting" for marriage. I have seen zero evidence that they require
either a religious ordinance or a secular approval. Although it may be old
fashioned, it is still a ritual that is a conditon prior to sexual
activity." - Woody

Riiiight. Don't allow us to marry and
then tell us that you'll "let" us marry once we abstain until we
marry. Illogic at it's finest.

Go Big Blue!!!Bountiful, UT

April 22, 2011 12:08 p.m.

If gay marriage was just about two people committing to spend their lives
together I would not have a problem with it.

What is really going
on is like when the camel is trying to putt his head in a tent. The camel is
not going to be happy until it is all the way in the tent. There is no way the
camel fits in the tent. The camel doesn't believe that it will destroy the tent
but it will if it continues to push its way in.

Same sex marriage is
a major step for changing everything in the legal system regarding homosexuals.
Adoption, taxes, school curriculum, religous rights, and the boy scouts just to
name a few of the things that will most likely be impacted by same sex marriage.

jasonlivyOrem, UT

April 22, 2011 11:31 a.m.

Live as you will, but there are consequences to your choices. The sins of lust:
pornography, homosexuality, promiscuity, premarital sex, etc are depravities of
an immoral society. Consequences will soon follow as we continue on this path of
perversion whether you agree or not. This is not a new problem for our current
civilization but has poisoned most advanced civilizations throughout the history
of the world. We are not exempt from the same consequences.

The line
between love and lust is so obscure that the two are almost synonymous in this
day and age. So many are told that they should give in to their desires because
they are good. "Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
for bitter!"

We are free to choose. Choice, whether good or bad,
comes with consequences. A marriage, the most vital union of any civilization,
should not be trifled with. Our very societal foundation will crumble as we
perverse this sacred institution.

Go UtesSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 11:00 a.m.

@atl134 10:38

You may choose to interpret my comments as
"offensive" if you wish. I can't control your thinking on that. If
you do not see any difference between having a tendency and acting on that
tendency then we are indeed in two different universes. Is attacking drug use
an attack on a drug addict? If we outlaw marriage between ten year olds, are we
attacking the ten year olds? As I noted, these are very important issues to
society and need to be discussed. If my very civil comments that state my view
are offensive to you, you will struggle in this debate.

As for
families doing fine, I am amused by this Massachusetts statistic. As if to say
that divorce is the only bad thing that can happen to a family.

I
will tell you what: If we have a constitutional amendment that says that gay
marriage will not prohibit my adoption agency from refusing to put kids in gay
marriages, protect my chapel from being forced to be used for gay weddings,
protect my children from being taught in school that gay marriage is acceptable,
etc., then I am not opposed to gay marriage.

Jason F.Provo, UT

April 22, 2011 10:54 a.m.

Globetrecker - There may be a small number of people who "choose" to
be gay - but it's very likely that most of those people were bisexual in the
first place. Incidentally, of the dozens of gay people I've met and talked to
about their feelings, all of them have stated that they were attracted to their
own gender as soon as they started feeling sexual attraction. It could be that
they were all lying in hopes of supporting the "gay agenda," but I
kind of doubt it.

The "homosexuality as a product of father
abuse" thing is a holdover from many decades ago, and has been rather
thoroughly disproven (as much as NARTH-esque organizations, in their desperate
desire to believe that there wouldn't be any gays if society would condemn it
more and if fathers would stop beating their children, would like us to believe
that it's true.)

For most people, homosexual feelings are present
at the earliest stages of sexual maturity, and, as most unbiased studies would
indicate, are the product of biology (see: twin studies, digit-length studies,
birth order studies, etc) and environment during early childhood (but not
abuse.)

It's kind of hilarious
that you suggest that "activist" studies aren't reliable, and then
cite NARTH as an example of providing reliable studies. Here's a clue: NARTH is
about as biased and agenda-driven as they come. They have been shown repeatedly
to misrepresent other studies and to blatantly fabricate information - all for
the purpose of promoting "reparative therapy," which, in reality, has
been shown to do far more harm than good. Of course, none of that matters to
you because they support your own agenda.

But yes, there are a few
studies that have been shown to be flawed. There are also lots of other studies
that have held up very well under scrutiny by unbiased reviewers (ie, not
NARTH), and which have shown that homosexuality is, for a vast majority people,
a product of biology (not genetic, but still biological) and environment in the
early years of life. Those who claim that it is a choice for most people are
perpetuating misinformation. Which is bad.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 10:38 a.m.

@Go Utes

"You disagreed with my post by saying: "The idea
that you believe that gay people are a threat to the 'protection of families'
and the 'sanctity of marriage' is kind of a heavy charge and can easily be
considered offensive.""

"You missed the point of my
post entirely. I do not believe that gay people are a threat to anything. I
believe that gay MARRIAGE is."

So you think two people in a
committed loving relationship is some sort of threat... that's still kind of a
heavy charge and can easily be considered offensive.

"But the
issue needs to be discussed and I never attacked gay PEOPLE. "

Yes you did. You can pretend the two are separate all you want but what you're
doing is condemning relationships of gay people which is typically considered an
attack on gay people. That's like pretending that attacking temple marriage is
somehow not an attack on Mormons.

"Gay MARRIAGE is indeed a
threat to families and the sanctity of marriage."

Massachusetts
still has the lowest divorce rates in the nation. I think families are doing
just fine...

WoodyNewbury Park, CA

April 22, 2011 10:34 a.m.

I will reconsider my position on gay marriage when there are examples of gay
couples "waiting" for marriage. I have seen zero evidence that they
require either a religious ordinance or a secular approval. Although it may be
old fashioned, it is still a ritual that is a conditon prior to sexual activity.

PaganSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 10:14 a.m.

All in all, the post's on here give me hope. Though many will claim 'gay
activist's' are the only ones posting on here (and I admit, I am one), let's be
real:

Either gay people are a 'minority', or we are gaining support.
It can't be both.

*'Poll: More Americans favor same-sex marriage' -
CNN - 04/19/11 ' With 51 percent of respondents saying that same-sex
marriages should be legal, it is the first time that a CNN poll has found
majority support for same-sex marriage.'

Notice, how people talk about how gay marriage will 'harm' straight
marrige...but never give examples?

*After 5 Years of Legal Gay
Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson
- AlterNet - 08/24/09 'Massachusetts retains the national title as the
lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce
rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

This data was collected from the 'National Center for Vital Statistics.'

'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency,
creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

PaganSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 9:44 a.m.

Being gay is a choice.

*Exodus International, study in 1978. Out of
800 people, only 3 were able to 'change' their orientation. That is a 'success'
rate of 0.4%

I wouldn't want a 0.4% success rate for...well,
anything.

*'Psychologists nix gay-to-straight therapy' - AP -
08/05/09 'The American Psychological Association slams technique that
seeks to change sexual orientation. 'No solid evidence exists that such
change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to
produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal
tendencies.'

*'Gay man says 'reversal' therapy did not change him' -
By Lisa Leff - Associated Press - Published by DSNews - 01/20/10 'SAN
FRANCISCO A gay man testified Wednesday in a federal same-sex marriage trial
that the "reversal therapy" he underwent as a teenager to change his
sexual orientation drove him to the brink of suicide.'

'A
Heaven-Sent Rent Boy' - By FRANK RICH - NYTimes - 05/15/10 '...the
married, 61-year-old (Goerge) Rekers (Co-founder of NARTH) was caught by Miami
New Times last month in the company of a 20-year-old male escort at Miami
International Airport.'

PaganSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 9:37 a.m.

Dispeling myths:

Gays cannot have children.

*'Lesbian
Utah legislator carrying baby for gay couple' - SLtribune - 01/08/10'...Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake, at her home on Friday, is 16 weeks
pregnant. Johnson is acting as a surrogate for a gay Salt Lake County couple,
her close friends, after they expressed frustration with the difficulty of
adopting a child in Utah.'

Not all hetro marriages have children.

Also, Hetro marriage enjoys a: 50% divorce rate and 40%
of all children in America are raised by single parents. CDC.

Note:
Marriage does not guarentee stable family. My example?

John
and Kate, plus 8. Now divorced. Also, a mother and father do not mean
marriage.

'Republican Ensign
admitted having an affair with wife of one of his aides'

Go UtesSalt Lake City, UT

April 22, 2011 9:27 a.m.

@atl134 3:31

You disagreed with my post by saying: "The idea
that you believe that gay people are a threat to the 'protection of families'
and the 'sanctity of marriage' is kind of a heavy charge and can easily be
considered offensive."

You missed the point of my post entirely.
I do not believe that gay people are a threat to anything. I believe that gay
MARRIAGE is. Again, you are confusing being with doing. There is nothing wrong
with BEING gay. What concerns me (and society) is ACTING on that tendency. We
all have passions that society asks us to control. As I noted, I concede that
dealing with same-sex attraction is a particularly acute thing to control--but
that doesn't make it wrong for society to expect it to be controlled.

Gay MARRIAGE is indeed a threat to families and the sanctity of marriage. Gay
PEOPLE are not at all, unless they are out actively trying to fight against
marriage and families by pushing for recognition of gay marriage. If you are
offended by my defense of marriage, I apologize. But the issue needs to be
discussed and I never attacked gay PEOPLE.

twelvestringsamOrem, UT

April 22, 2011 9:11 a.m.

I agree with this article. There will always be differing opinions. Gays and
Lesbians send their message through Internet blogs, comments and discussion
boards, and are very vocal. They have a specific agenda.Those who believe
otherwise need to be vocal as well and ensure their voices are heard through the
same process.I believe in marriage between a Man and Woman for reasons
stated in this article.

Dan

BubbleSLC, UT

April 22, 2011 6:29 a.m.

@ Linus: Actually, Christ never said anything about homosexuality...

You would think if it was that big of a deal, He would have said
something.....

Of course, there is speculation that He did - in
Matthew when He is talking about eunochs......

But that
interpretation supports homosexuality....

Kind of makes you wonder,
doesn't it?

LinusBountiful, UT

April 21, 2011 11:29 p.m.

According to many of the comments, Jesus Christ was/is a bigot. I won't buy it.
I think a loving God and Father-of-all wants us to be happy, and clearly marks
for us a straight path to happiness. I am a senior citizen and a retired
English teacher. I know the definition of marriage. You can't fool me.

attentiveSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 11:03 p.m.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World. That's what I believe. That's what I
know.

Sneaky JimmyBay Area, CA

April 21, 2011 7:38 p.m.

Maybe we should ask the kids in the orphanages in Romania and elswhere that no
one bothers to touch if they would object to having "gay" parents. How
about the kids in Africa where both parents have died of aids, would they mind
being cared for by a same sex couple?

TruthseekerSLO, CA

April 21, 2011 7:04 p.m.

"Our family really isn't so different from any other Iowa family,"
said Zach Wahls. "When I am home, we go to church together, we eat dinner,
we go on vacations...."In my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted
by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay
couple," he said. "And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of
my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character."

Wahls emphasized the typical nature of his upbringing, as well as his own
success. He is an Eagle Scout and a small business owner. He also scored in the
99th percentile on the ACT and is now an engineering student at U of Iowa.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 6:53 p.m.

donburi"What I'm clearly saying is that gays said it would not be
taught, and now it's about to be taught. "

You wouldn't complain
about this if you didn't think schools should ignore the existence of a
demographic of people. Somehow I also think that there's a difference between
teaching students about Harvey Milk and telling them they should experiment or
some other kind of thing like that (I bet what the gay rights advocates said
wouldn't be taught would be encouraging kids to become gay which is different
than noting gay people exist).

KJB1Eugene, OR

April 21, 2011 6:45 p.m.

Globetrecker 3:14 P.M.

That's funny, all of my gay friends have said
that they were attracted to the same gender ever since they could remember. I
had more than one woman "reject" me before I met my wife, but nobody
ever tried to recruit me. Should I feel left out?

It's funny, I've
read all these posts and for all the talk about the "gay agenda" and
"defending marriage", the only real argument the anti-gay marriage
people have boils down to some version of this:

1) Because God said
so.2) Homosexuality is gross.

If you want to feel this way, go
ahead, but your feelings aren't proper justification for denying people their
civil rights. We survived women gaining greater mobility in society, we
survived interracial marriage, and we'll survive this. I guarantee you that
someday our children will look back at us and wonder what the big deal was.

jansPickerington, OH

April 21, 2011 6:40 p.m.

I disagree with Mulder21 about the four points and how that will become a major
problem in our society. The rights of religious persons to conscientiously
object MUST BE UPHELD, regardless of where the marriage debate ends. If someone
else can provide these services for gay couples, then the ones who decline to
provide them should not be penalized. Perhaps you could argue that they do not
receive government funding, but they should be able to stick to their beliefs in
their professional life as well as their personal life.

1. Graduate
students are being kicked out of marriage counseling programs because they are
unwilling to personally counsel gay couples on how to sustain their
relationships.

2. A physician in California was penalized
for not artificially impregnating a lesbian woman.

3. In
Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of the
adoption business because it refused to place children with gay couples.

4. In Illinois, Catholic, evangelical and Lutheran adoption
and foster care agencies are being probed for discrimination

AndyCottonwood Heights, UT

April 21, 2011 6:21 p.m.

The homosexual community loves to rely on some unidentifiable force that will
bring gay marriage. But they never look at the facts: the people of America do
not support nor to they want their government to sanction gay marriage.

Gay marriage has been outlawed by constitutional amendment in nearly
every state. It has never been approved by voters and in nearly every place it
has been allowed it has regularly been overturned by voters.

If you
don't like the legal consequences of your unnatural union then form a contract
with your partner that gives him/her the same benefits you would have if you
were in a natural union. There are numerous web pages that address how to do
this. Contractually give the right to make end of life decisions, to inherit
your estate, to benefit from your life insurance policy etc etc.

There is no discrimination because you are allowed to contractually make these
arrangements under the current law.

Brother Chuck SchroederA Tropical Paradise USA, FL

April 21, 2011 6:17 p.m.

Tell the TRUTH DN. You know what makes me sick. I'll tell ya'll what makes me
sick. It's stuff like this. Like it or not Utah, this is my view. Let's start
now with Michael De Groote, Deseret News - title - "Gay marriage and
reshaping society." OK PEOPLE, "Wake up America". Why are we
"American's living in a Country "without any laws" all around
anarchists"?. What's Congress and State law makers doing to cause this?.
Even these Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven
underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks, the anarchists from Petrograd
and Moscow fled to the Ukraine. Who in OUR GOVERNMENT is putting a stranglehold
on political freedoms we always known?. Are ya'll tired yet of these person's
who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power, who
believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy, especially one who
uses violent means to overthrow the established order of The United States of
America?. Do you want to give up YOUR Holy Bible for the Anarchist Cookbook?.
How about The Book Of Mormon also, seeing Utah is the Mormon State?. It's time
to "WAKE UP AMERICA."

BebyebeUUU, UT

April 21, 2011 5:24 p.m.

Gay marriage will come. The people here who are so offended will fall away.
Younger people are less worried about other's private lives. Even utah will
have to accept it.

SpringvillepoetSpringville, UT

April 21, 2011 5:23 p.m.

@ RantBully

You said: "I find it offensive for gays to brand me
as a bigot to make their burden easier while taking away my religious
agency."

Gay marriage does not take away your religious agency,
but denying civil rights to any U.S. citizen is bigotted.

Here are a
few questions for you and others:

How many heterosexual couples'
marriages have become null and void based upon gay men or women getting married?

How many heterosexual couples have called off thir marriages
because gay men and women have been allowed to marry in some states?

How many gay or lesbian couples have filed a law suit against the LDS Church
if they are not allowed to in the temple?

How many courts would
uphold such a suit if ever filed?

The answer to all of those
questions? NONE.

JMLehi, UT

April 21, 2011 5:08 p.m.

When my wife became a citizen and promised to defend freedom, I committed to
defending against those who would destroy the First Amendment. Gay activists and
the ACLU lead the charge to take rights from religious people to be involved
politically, donate to opposing causes, vote, and speak freely. As part of
their call to oppress religion, destroy the Utah brand and so on, gay activists
seek media outlets, comments, movies and subtly demonize those standing for
traditional marriage. They purposely misinform about studies they do trying to
prove homosexuality is genetic and gays are better parents (read Creating Gay
Children and narth). These claims are not true. There are many wonderful
gays, but militant activists paint the religious as bigots, even posing as
religious people, they also have practiced responses such as: Gay propaganda
doesnt hurt families. Ive seen it destroy many. Or, animals are homosexual (ever
seen strictly lesbian/gay animals?) Animals also eat their young, some humans
also. We teach our children not to do this, we also teach them that
homosexuality isnt the way to happiness. And research shows that if we dont do
this, our children increasingly turn gay.

firstamendmentLehi, UT

April 21, 2011 5:07 p.m.

Gays are free to be gay, but governments have no reason to bind them. When we
bind homosexuals, or mainstream and normalize homosexuality, we send a message
to children and adults that variant sexual relationships are also ideal,
crucial, and good for all. Studies indicate that they are not.

As
legislators and activists promote homosexual cultures they increase the numbers
of people who believe they were born gay, thus creating homosexuals with
attendant ills. Once subjected to homosexual environments too many abandon
spouses and children for variant sexuality, thus destroying crucial heterosexual
marriages and families. Consenting heterosexuals are legally bound because
healthy heterosexual relationships are crucial for society and children raised
in these Traditional Families do better.

Some activists want to take
the right of marriage from all, if they cant have it (like Pearts extremists,
keeping the trees equal by hatchet axe and saw).

They seek to
control media and discourage all from speaking the truth about gay violence etc.
They say:It would be just plain bad press for gays andall bad news needs
to besuppressedFrom Creating Gay Children

MPeaceProvo, Utah

April 21, 2011 5:03 p.m.

No matter how many GAY marriages are made - they will never make a Family. It
is Impossible.

It will be just an assortment of people.

In a Man Gay Marriage - Where will be the Mother? Is the Surrogate mother to
be the Mother when she will be never around? There will only be a father. -
and the child resulting will NEVER know who its Mother ever is. Is this a
family? In a Divorced couple Family there is at least Access to the mother or
father.

In a Woman Gay Marriage - Where will be the Father? Is the
Sperm Donor the father? -If so , where is he? The same situation occurs as in
the man gay marriage. There is no Access to the Father.

Therefore in
all of these cases NO Family results.

Man/Woman relationships -even
teen pregnancies - still have the Father known. -And the Mother. -And make a
Family Due to the parents of the pregnant one. If the parents of the pregnant
one do not want the responsibility, they choose adoption.

Adoption
into a family which has a woman as a mother and a man as a father is best. -
Not into a group of people.

Happy Valley HereticOrem, UT

April 21, 2011 4:58 p.m.

IDCoug: I don't hate gays but I do hate homosexuality.I guess I can see
your point, I love God, but I Hate Religions.

"It seems to be
part of the training that gays go through about how to put people of a different
opinion on the defensive."

Although I'm unaware of the training
course you mention, I am aware that religious training does teach how to
put people of a different opinion into a lessor class of people, until they see
things the way they do.

donburiOceanside, CA

April 21, 2011 4:58 p.m.

@Kalinda,

Like I said, not a direct link to Prop 8. But certainly
part of the continuing gay agenda. With CA public school education being pushed
to include gay issues even with Prop 8 passing, imagine how much more things
would be pushed if it hadn't passed. The Prop 8 side was not wrong. If anything,
the CA bill proves even more that they were right.

sjgfSouth Jordan, UT

April 21, 2011 4:39 p.m.

@Really???

"What comes across as hateful is comparing my
feelings--something that is an innate part of me--to that of a pig, duck, horse,
or moose."

My, touchy, aren't we? No one was comparing your
feelings to anything. The definition of the word "marriage" was being
explained by example. Why would you take someone's statement that they wanted
the word to retain the same meaning that has been associated with it for
thousands of years to be a slight on your feelings? But I guess some people will
twist anything to feel justified in throwing out the "hate" word in a
discussion of traditional marriage. :-( It seems to be part of the training that
gays go through about how to put people of a different opinion on the defensive.

IDCougBoise, ID

April 21, 2011 4:36 p.m.

Happy valley heretic: "If I can feel this strongly about it, why can't a
gay person feel the same?

It's about respect for others
beliefs."

I don't hate gays but I do hate homosexuality. Just
like I hate premarital sex, adultery, and media that glorifys teen pregnancy as
cute and acceptable. I believe that I can fight against things I believe are
wrong and that damage the society I live in. I have gay cousins that I love and
can associate with. I wish they had made different choices.

MPeaceProvo, Utah

April 21, 2011 4:22 p.m.

No One, Even If the Country were All Gays, Could Change the ULTIMATE LAW SET
FORTH BY GOD ON GAY MARRIAGE, -And the GAY's Know It.

This Gay
Marriage Thing is only good for Insurance and Retirement Benefits.

-And Their Minds. -And the Bluffing of the communities they live in so they
won't be Ostricized.

Their Marriages are meaningless when it comes
to GOD. Him they Cannot Change!

All this is Set Forth in The Book Of
Leviticus In The Bible.

Maybe a law on the books may make life better
for them in their communities and should be passed so they can feel better about
themselves freely, without criticism.

Such a law will NEVER CHANGE
the REAL marriage LAW set by God. -Just the Human Set of Laws. Can any human
turn off the Law of Gravity? Likewise, no human can change the real law of
marriage.

Gays DO Need their freedom in the human set of laws for
their own self respect, freedom, insurance, medical benefits, and Retirements.

KalindraSalt Lake City, Utah

April 21, 2011 4:19 p.m.

@ donburi: "During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would
not result in teaching about gays in public schools." And one of the
arguments in favor of Prop 8 was that if it wasn't passed gay would be taught in
public schools.

Prop 8 passed, and now there is (still or again or
something) talk about teaching about gays in schools.

Looks like both
sides were wrong on that one.

California does not have gay marriage.
Obviously, teaching about gays in history and society is not impacted by the
availability of gay marriage.

(As a side note to Maggie Gallagher,
Illinois doesn't have gay marriage either, so what is happening in Illinois is
not about gay marriage. A few of her other "facts" aren't all they
appear to be either. But, hey, a stretch here and a fib there, what's the
difference? Who needs the truth anyway?)

firstamendmentLehi, UT

April 21, 2011 4:18 p.m.

My wife recently became a Naturalized American Citizen. As the Judge had her
promise to protect freedom and fight for liberty I thought in my heart about how
the ACLU and Gay activists are seeking to take away the rights of religious
people to be involved in voting and politically active. I promised myself that I
would speak out when I can for this First Amendment right of free expression of
religion.

As part of that, I wasnt to remind all that, as part of
this effort to "destroy" religious minorities, and
"demonize" those who are opposed to marriage (read "Creating Gay
Children") activists are on comment boards full time, posting
misinformation about Mormons, and about gays. Many of the studies they push are
actually done by activists, even those studies indicate that homosexuality is
not genetic. And, as we mainstream homosexuality through marriage, tax funded
parades, media, and now forced into our schools, we increase the numbers of
children who think they were born gay.

Say what you want about
that, but clearly mainstreaming homosexuality increases it. (see narth).
Teaching that gay marriage is equally sacred to crucial heterosexual marriage
causes parents to abandon children for gay relationships.

donburiOceanside, CA

April 21, 2011 3:54 p.m.

@donburi"During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would
not result in teaching about gays in public schools. "

So let me
get this straight... you're saying that schools should pretend a certain
demographic of people do not exist?

------------------------

Um, no. What I'm clearly saying is that gays said it would not be
taught, and now it's about to be taught. They were wrong.

So-CalAggieAnaheim, CA

April 21, 2011 3:49 p.m.

If Gay is a choice, by a show of hands I want to know who's ever considered
being Gay. Who of you have ever contemplated switching sides? Also, if Gay is
a choice, how do you account for homosexuality/bisexuality among animals in
nature? BTW, even if homosexuals only accounted for 1% of the total population,
and that number is debatable, its still represents 65,000,000 people! Also, why
would someone choose to join a group who has one of the highest suicide rates in
the world? Gee, I think I'll be Gay and then ostracized by a majority of the
people in the world, and then disowned by friends and family, and possibly
employers, etc., that makes sense! Sexuality is a choice like breathing in air
is a choice.

22ozn44ozglassSouthern Utah, UT

April 21, 2011 3:36 p.m.

weedeater:.... "Human sexuality occurs naturally (born that way)along a
spectrum; though the majority of people are heterosexual. A minority continue
the spectrum through bi-sexual attraction to completely homosexaul"

This model was perpetrated upon the world by Kinsey. Kinsey's work is a
blatant fraud and propaganda. Kinsey had his spectrum of sexuality in mind
before he did his "research" and then he manipulated his samples to
acheive the results he wanted.

Any models of sexuality based upon
Kinseys work needs to be held suspect becuase Kinsey did not adhere to quality
research standards and he did not even have a statistician on his team. His
work was funded by the Rockefellar Foundation, and even officials in the
foundation have admitted that there are serious statistical errors that have
plagued the work from the very beginning.

Kinsey was on a quest to
break down public morality and to institute his ideas of what was normal sexual
behaviour. However, even his own research assistants have openly stated that he
was not the same man as the facade he portrayed to the world. He was a sexual
deviant, derived purrient interest and stimulation from ritual sexual abuse of
children.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 3:31 p.m.

@Go Utes"Fighting same-sex marriage is not about hating gays
(although many same-sex marriage advocates try to paint it that way). It is
about protecting families and the sanctity of marriage"

The idea
that you believe that gay people are a threat to the "protection of
families" and the "sanctity of marriage" is kind of a heavy
charge and can easily be considered offensive.

@donburi"During the Prop 8 debates, gay supporters said that it would not result
in teaching about gays in public schools. "

So let me get this
straight... you're saying that schools should pretend a certain demographic of
people do not exist?

@Uncle Charles"Maybe you should read
the Family Proclamation, the first couple chapters in Genesis, and go through an
endowment session to help in your understanding of the eternal plan of
happiness. You might also read the words of Christ in Mark where He states that
man and woman should leave their parents and become one. It's sad to see
self-proclaimed LDS folks be so confused on the doctrine."

Whose
plan was it that involved forcing everyone else to abide by the rules?

TruthseekerSLO, CA

April 21, 2011 3:26 p.m.

re:talia1976Not defending NOM, but I am curious about your assertions that
NOM was founded by the LDS church and wondering if you can share your source(s).
One of NOM's recent defectors, Louis Martinelli stated that NOM was mostly a
group of Catholics. However, it is true that Matthew Holland, now UVU Pres. sat
or sits on the board of NOM.

teri88Spotswood, NJ

April 21, 2011 3:22 p.m.

Uncle Charles....I have read The Proclomation. I agree that marriage between a
man and woman, sealed for eternity is the IDEAL. But that is not the
reality...there are people who never married, people who are divorced. Same with
the endowment, yeah, I've done that, 30 years ago in fact. Again, the ideal.
Just because that is the ideal doesn't mean that people who don't fit that mold
(the majority of the world) shouldn't be able to marry. And as far as anything
in the Old Testiment do I need to start listing all of the things in there that
we no longer adhere to??

GlobetreckerArlington, va

April 21, 2011 3:14 p.m.

Regarding the gay gene, I can only go with what my gay friends have told me or
what I have seen them do. Every single one was straight before they were gay.
Every one of them (I have about 10 friends from the U.S. and in the UK who are
"gay") They ALL were straight until they hit a certain snag where they
were rejected by the members of the opposite sex & guess who was there to
usher them into a completely accepted lifestyle? The gay communities. They ADMIT
it. They say that they got deep into the lifestyle and they turned and CHOSE to
go the other way. Ask your "gay" friends if they can HONESTLY say they
always were gay. Some others may have had childhood experiences or abuse which
confuse them about things, others may be predisposed to be more manly or
feminine (read the DNA inf).

Contrary to that 10% figure of people
being gay, it's only about 1% if you google it AND if you actually get neutral
studies. Gay propaganda is ridiculous and trying to make us all believe it's a
bigger population than it really is.

lsslcSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 3:10 p.m.

The main issue I have with this article is it yet another example of mainstream
society talking AT the gay community instead of with them. There is no effort to
have a conversation or hear the other side of the story. To me this is crappy
journalism.

I am a heterosexual wife and mother of three. I believe
in marriage and family. I think strong families are the center of a strong
society. Our societal weakness does not come from homosexuality, it comes from
abusive, ignorant parents who raise the same. Abuse and ignorance know no
gender. How does a gay marriage undermine my own? How will it stop heterosexual
families from having babies?

Personally I think a child is better
off being raised by a nice gay couple than abusive heterosexual parents, yet
somehow the latter is more socially acceptable. We have got to stop talking
about gays like they are satanic freaks here to bring about the end of the
world. If you think that way, it's time to make some gay friends.

weedeaterMurray, UT

April 21, 2011 3:03 p.m.

"Gay is a learned behavior"

You are wrong. Human sexuality
occurs naturally (born that way)along a spectrum; though the majority of people
are heterosexual. A minority continue the spectrum through bi-sexual attraction
to completely homosexual. So, yes, some people (bisexuals) may
"choose" to be homosexual, but not all homosexuals choose to be
homosexual, some are just born that way. Ask the next gay person you get to know
well enough to ask such a personal question.It's like this, RockOn, if you
want to know about carpentry will you go ask a doctor? What if you want to know
something about medicine, would you ask a carpenter? This line of reasoning may
sound familiar to you. Ask a gay person about gay things if you want to know the
truth.

Uncle CharlesWhere freedom and liberty reign, utah

April 21, 2011 2:52 p.m.

@Really???: you stated, " I chose to be lonely because I can't honestly
have a loving relationship with somebody of the same gender."

Why can't you honestly have a loving relationship with someone of the same
gender? What's stopping you? do you need that piece of paper to solidify your
"loving relationship"?

@teri88 in NJ: Maybe you should read
the Family Proclamation, the first couple chapters in Genesis, and go through an
endowment session to help in your understanding of the eternal plan of
happiness. You might also read the words of Christ in Mark where He states that
man and woman should leave their parents and become one. It's sad to see
self-proclaimed LDS folks be so confused on the doctrine.

@Danny: I
agree with you that divorce is a major problem in our society. Can you convince
the courts to eliminate no-fault divorce and then force them to have the unwed
pregnant mother identify the father so that man can be legally responsible for
providing for his child instead of having the mother go on welfare forever?

donburiOceanside, CA

April 21, 2011 2:50 p.m.

@Stenar:

"It is a well-known fact that Maggie Gallagher did not
found NOM." - Really? It's funny how often I see statements of
"well-known fact" from people who are trying to push their own opinion
but have no proof. I never heard that. How is it well-known?

"It
was founded by the LDS church." - Anyone can make an allegation.
Please cite source.

"Gallagher was recruited by Matthew Holland,
son of Jeffrey R. Holland, who was rewarded for his involvement on the board of
NOM by being appointed president of UVU, despite no academic leadership
experience." - Again, please cite source. What is the link (if any)
between NOM and UVU that would make that appointment possible?

talia1976Pleasanton, CA

April 21, 2011 2:38 p.m.

The National Organization Against Marriage was not founded by Maggie Gallagher.
It was founded by the Mormon Church. You'd think a newspaper that is also owned
by the Church would be able to get that part right. Since this is an obviously
misleading statement, one is left to wonder how many other untruthful statements
are contained in this campaign. My belief is they are legion.

Concerned and InvolvedSpanish Fork, UT

April 21, 2011 2:37 p.m.

RanchHand,

I am not a bigot. In fact, I do not believe that
homosexuality is a choice. I simply believe whether you act upon those feelings
is the choice. I am also of the belief that individuals have every right to live
their lives the way they choose. I have a right to live my life the way I
choose. I simply stated that one can choose to not act upon certain temptations.

donburiOceanside, CA

April 21, 2011 2:32 p.m.

From the Associated Press, April 14, 2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Gays,
lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people would be added to the lengthy list of
social and ethnic groups that public schools must include in social studies
lessons under a landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate.

If the bill is adopted by the state Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown,
California would become the first state to require the teaching of gay history.

---------------------

During the Prop 8 debates, gay
supporters said that it would not result in teaching about gays in public
schools. There may not be a direct link to Prop 8 with this CA bill, but
teaching about gays in public schools is now being pushed. Sad.

Steve-oOgden, UT

April 21, 2011 2:18 p.m.

Morality: Conformity, or degree of conformity, to conventional standards of
moral conduct.Marriage: The social institution under which a man and a
woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments,
religious ceremonies.

We're rewriting the book on these two words,
and it's not increasing the quality of our society. We're going the wrong
direction on these issues.

Anon 64Oahu, HI

April 21, 2011 2:16 p.m.

Mc. I do not want to defend Gays, mostly because Gays do Not Need Defending.

They do Not need You to Judge them or tell them that they are doing good
becaause they are not acting on their same Sex Attraction. What they are doing
for whatever reason is depriving them selfs of a loving and fulling
relationship.

I have learned a lot about gays in the last several
months. In Dec My Wife and I took in an Openly Gay Foster Child. Mahu would be
the word but your mind can't even come close to handling that idea. Openly
accepted in Hawaii.

I have custody of his brother and he asked my
wife if we would help him out. So she pulled the strings and they where more
then happy to place him out of the shelter.

He is not broken and
does not need fixing at least on that issue. He presents Male most of the time.
However his friends are teenage girls his age. He brings them home to play video
games girl chat etc. No S Word, Drugs, Booze,Smoking etc. Lots of Rock and
Roll.

Because you are Hetrosexual does not make you better.

terra novaPark City, UT

April 21, 2011 2:15 p.m.

Gay marriage doesn't bother me. It is the lawyers, politicians and social
activists who want to have same-sex marriage legalized and watch as the schools
are forced to imprint my six year-old with stories about how "Dick and
Jane" are now stories about "Jane and Jasmine's Turkey-baster
Baby" (which Jane's ex-husband and his new beau, kindly helped them with).

I'm like, "See Dick Run, Run Dick Run."

I don't
even want schools to have to begin talking about Dick and Jane's sex life at
that age. But you can bet the LGBT community will be right there with a
"sensitive," self-published book about it. And any teacher who
opposes teaching it will be branded an insensitive bigot, a throwback to the
deep-south racists and Klan members, someone who needs to be fired.

A
friend of mine once observed, "I don't care if Clinton and Monica had a
little romp in the oval office. I don't care about the stains on her dress. I
care that my elementary-aged daughter turned to me and asked "What is oral
sex daddy?" For that, Clinton deserves no forgiveness."

Go UtesSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 2:06 p.m.

@ Really??? 6:43 a.m.

I did not see anything in this story that is
hateful to someone dealing with same-sex attraction. It did not say you are
bad. It did not say you are destroying America. It is simply making the case
against same-sex marriage. Fighting same-sex marriage is not about hating gays
(although many same-sex marriage advocates try to paint it that way). It is
about protecting families and the sanctity of marriage. If I am born with a
predisposed desire to steal things and society won't allow me to steal--it is
not out of hate for me, but out of concern for me acting on my pre-born desire
to steal. If I am born with an addiction to crack, it is still illegal for me
to use crack--not because society hates me.

You are confusing being
with doing. I will concede that same-sex attraction is a particularly acute
problem with which to deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the opposition
to same-sex marriage--including the matters discussed in this article--is not
about hatred of gays.

xscribeColorado Springs, CO

April 21, 2011 1:54 p.m.

You know what, while we're at it, those Goth kids with the black hair and black
clothes and body parts all pierced in multiple places, that's just not normal or
moral. I don't like it and they harm me just from the mere fact that they
exist. My kids have to look at them, and then I have to explain to them why
they look like that. I'm very afraid that they will turn my kids into Goths
also. And once they get a foothold, then I don't even want to think what the
world will be like.

Sarcasm off!

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 1:53 p.m.

ender: "You want proof? Since you seem to want the change, prove that by
changing an historical institution, you won't be changing the
"socio-political-cultural" landscape!!! "

Like when we
changed our socio-political-cultural landscape by accepting women as full
citizens or changing the centuries old socio-political-cultural landscape od
slavery.

Treating all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens as equals is a
change, but not for the worse. It makes us all better people.

Can
you tell me what harm has come from having nine countries and 5 states along
with the Dist of Columbia allowing gays to marry? This is over a decade old.

Maybe you think this is causing all the earthquakes? Really?

Roman KSLC, Utah

April 21, 2011 1:41 p.m.

Can we just call it a 'union', provide all the legal and tax advantages, and be
done with it already?

WhatsGoingOnHereOgden, UT

April 21, 2011 1:26 p.m.

The article is correct saying: "This is a war."

One group
fighting for acceptance of a behavior that another group finds repugnant.

The LGBT community is using gay marriage as a tool to gain greater
acceptance. If this were about marriage, a civil union would solve the proble.
After all a rose is still a rose. All the benefits that they seek are granted as
part of a civil union, but that won't further their agenda.

If gay
marriages were legalized in all 50 states and throughout the world, the LGBT
community would pick up another issue to use as a tool to gain acceptance in
society.

The war will rage on.

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

April 21, 2011 1:16 p.m.

Concerned and Involved

"Many would say that we need to have
tolerance. I say that we need to accept and love all people, but we do not need
to tolerate their behavior. "--

CI, I couldn't agree more.
Bigotry is a behavior that we absolutely should not tolerate. BTW, bigotry is
definitely a choice.

@IDC;Belief isn't a good reason to
discriminate against anybody.

RantBullyBend, OR

April 21, 2011 1:14 p.m.

If God is the creator, and God is perfect, then why would he create both men and
women in order to have gay relationships? People will debate the cause of
homosexuality forever, but homosexual relationships do not match the perfect
intent of God's male and female creation. The human body is imperfect during
this lifetime. After our bodies are resurrected, they will be in their perfect
form. I can't believe that perfect form would be with homosexual tendencies and
subsequent relationships. Until then, a gay individual unfortunately is burdened
with struggles that are difficult to carry. But just because those burdens are
heavy to bear, does it mean that we should throw God's plan out and dismiss what
he expects of us. I feel sorry for my gay friends and hope they can do their
best to accept those challenges given to them in this life. But, I am not God,
and it would be wrong for me to try to dismiss his commands. Although I care for
my gay friends, I find it offensive for gays to brand me as a bigot to make
their burden easier while taking away my religious agency.

EnderSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 1:05 p.m.

@Lane MyerYou ask for proof, yet you are the one who wants to change
hundreds of years of history! How can you possibly think that altering a bedrock
of the social fabric of our society would not have a significant ripple
affect?!

Michaelitos already proved how this change would affect
people on a personal level. What is the "socio-political-cultural"
makeup of our society except the sum of all its individuals?

You want
proof? Since you seem to want the change, prove that by changing an historical
institution, you won't be changing the "socio-political-cultural"
landscape!!!

Rocket ScienceBrigham City, UT

April 21, 2011 12:59 p.m.

DO NOT force a definition into something that it is NOT. Marriage is defined as
the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The definition of husband
is a man married to a woman. The definition of wife is a woman married to a
man. By definition a homosexual relationship is not marriageable. Dont use
legal systems to try to change definitions to try to make what is abnormal part
of the norm for marriage.

Neither do I, and I could Not be talked into being attracted to the same
sex or convinced that it's right for Me.That said, Why shouldn't I give
others the same respect for how they feel about who they are attracted to. If they are attracted to the same sex, why can't it be with the same zeal that
I have for the opposite sex.If I can feel this strongly about it, why
can't a gay person feel the same?

It's about respect for others
beliefs.

Concerned and InvolvedSpanish Fork, UT

April 21, 2011 12:39 p.m.

I am sickened by the wanton disregard for both marriage and family, and I am
even further disturbed by the discrimination that takes place in our society.
While I disagree with homosexuality and feel that it is not morally correct, I
do not believe anyone would choose it. Homosexuality is a temptation, not a
choice and is just like any other temptation. Some struggle with homosexuality,
while others struggle with dishonesty, anger management, addiction, pornography,
or something else. It matters not what the temptation is, it only matters
whether you choose to fight or not. The choice is not in whether you struggle,
it is whether you give in to the temptation.

Many would say that we
need to have tolerance. I say that we need to accept and love all people, but we
do not need to tolerate their behavior.

IDCBoise, ID

April 21, 2011 12:38 p.m.

I don't remember deciding I like women. I also don't remember deciding to love
the Dallas Cowboys. Is my loving the Dallas Cowboys a choice or did environment
play a role in that? Maybe seeing the Dallas Cowboys on TV influenced my
decision more than the Dallas Cowboys gene did? The more homosexuality is
pushed in society and the media, the more people will THINK they were born that
way. That is sad to me and I believe will lead to a weaker society.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 12:16 p.m.

"In Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of
the adoption business because it refused to place children with gay
couples."

Because they take gov't money. When you do that you
have to abide by gov't non-discrimination policies... or stop taking the money.
That's why LDSFS has had no problems in Massachusetts. They don't take public
money.

Zack TacorinSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 12:03 p.m.

Chris B | 10:21 a.m. April 21, 2011 You said that homosexuals "want
to make sure everyone knows they are gay", but that you (a heterosexual) do
not insist others know your sexual preference. I think this is an over
generalization, but even if it weren't, can you explain how this relates to
whether same-sex marriage should be allowed?

washcomomBeaverton, OR

April 21, 2011 11:58 a.m.

Marriages ARE recorded in church halls, temples and mosques. That is how many of
the genealogy records are able to be found.

Marriage is also the
only religious action that has to also have a government issuance of a license.

ShadenLincoln, NE

April 21, 2011 11:50 a.m.

@Really???

"Please tell me how the comments others make is
suppression of religion? All I can say is I am tired of being made to feel less
than the "normal" people of the world. I have value, but these
organizations like NOM make people believe I don't."

My comment
was addressing the overall argument of pro-gay marriage groups in contemporary
discourse. Media images of the "fallout" after Prop 8 in 2008 attest
to it: The LA LDS temple gates with "bigot" spray painted on it,
while those opposed to prop 8 shouting obscenities at those who were attending
inside. Hotels and businesses owned by those who defended Prop 8 being
blacklisted, boycotted, and publicly ridiculed by gay rights groups. Target,
Chick-Fil-A, and other chains being mocked online because they donated money to
pro-family causes. The LDS church (and by that same token, every active member)
being scapegoated.

Never did I state that you don't have any value or
did I attack you. However, I find the logic and rhetoric of these pro-gay groups
(paradoxically screaming at pro-family groups to "love" and
"tolerate" and "coexist") baffling and disturbing.

StenarSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 11:46 a.m.

It is a well-known fact that Maggie Gallagher did not found NOM. It was founded
by the LDS church. Gallagher was recruited by Matthew Holland, son of Jeffrey
R. Holland, who was rewarded for his involvement on the board of NOM by being
appointed president of UVU, despite no academic leadership experience.

So-CalAggieAnaheim, CA

April 21, 2011 11:42 a.m.

@Rockon: "Gay" is a learned behavior? Please reference any peer
reviewed real scientific evidence to back up your claim, otherwise we should all
dismiss it as your biased opinion based on your world view... or in other words
your "learned behavior." Sans proof I congratulate you for having an
opinion, just like Ms. Gallagher.

If sexuality is a choice, please
describe the day you woke up and declared yourself Heterosexual. I'm hetero
myself, yet I can't recall making that choice. What's also funny is that I keep
hearing from the Pious (aka the leadership of the LDS Church in particular) that
we should "resist our NATURAL urges" in reference to sexual behaviors
(usually premarital, or when speaking of "self abuse" etc.). Natural
urges? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of your argument that our sexuality
is a choice? Am I to believe that as I progressed through adolescence that my
sexual urges were really just a choice, and not "natural"?

Really???Kearns, UT

April 21, 2011 11:30 a.m.

Where did I put my tight pink shorts and britney spears tank top? Oh yeah, I
don't own any.

Chris BSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 11:15 a.m.

Ranch,

Did I ever say if a gay holds hand with another gay its
shoving it in my face?

No.

Recently a group of gays
gathered at the state capital wearing dresses, makeup, and high heels to whine
about something gay.

Why did they dress like women?

Because they wanted everyone to know they were gay.

No straight
person acts in such a way solely for the purpose of letting everyone else know
they are straight.

Yes - straight people do straight things, such as
hold hands, but its not for the puropose of making sure everyone knows they are
gay.

"But a gay marriage doesn't produce
children to be abandoned-heterosexual relationships do. Please explain how this
relates to gay marriage?"

If we redefine marriage in lots of
different ways, we weaken the institution. That increases out of wedlock
births. We live in a society where fathers don't recognize that they have a
responsibility for their children. Indeed, they may not even know they have
children. They've moved on.

Tekakaromatagi

SpringvillepoetSpringville, UT

April 21, 2011 11:09 a.m.

I forgot to clarify earlier that I disagree with most of what Maggie Gallagher
has to say, generally and specifically. I am in favor of gay marriage not only
on moral grounds, but on legal grounds as well.

JaxBountiful, UT

April 21, 2011 11:02 a.m.

"If you want to know how same-sex marriage is going to affect traditional
believers, mainstream Christians and other faith communities, ask yourself how
do we treat racists who are opposed to interracial marriage in the public
square."

It won't matter if the laws are changed or not Mrs.
Gallagher, I already view people like you the same way I view racists and other
participants in harmful discrimination. The laws aren't what changed the way
racists are viewed, rather the way racists are viewed is what changed the laws.
We are seeing a similar change happening now around the world with regard to
sexual orientation. Thank goodness.

xscribeColorado Springs, CO

April 21, 2011 10:58 a.m.

@Zack Tacorin: Stop with being logical; it will only bring on more illogical
comments, lol! Have you read these posts? For instance, "gays want the
world to know they are gay, and wear pink shorts to the gym," paraphrasing,
of course. I personally am friends with many gays who are the exact opposite of
what that particular poster has said. Would you most likely know they are gay?
Yes. Do they kiss and hug and make a scene? No. Blanket statements are
hilarious. I'll bet the poster has even had contact or been friends with
someone who is gay and not even known it.

However, I do this because I want to hold my girlfriends hand, NOT because I
want everyone to know I am straight."--Whatever makes you think
that if I hold my partner's hand in public it is because I want everyont to know
that I'm gay and that I'm not doing it just because I want to hold his hand?

It seems that it's okay for you because it's what you "want"
to do, but if I "want" to do it, I'm shoving my gayness in your
face.

That, my friend, is called hypocrisy.

Zack TacorinSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 10:38 a.m.

sjgf at 9:55 a.m. April 21, 2011 said,"The word "Marriage"
is that word created in the English language to signify a specific type of
relationship between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of
those two people supporting each other through life."

By this
same criteria I think we would have to condemn our Mormon forefathers for their
practice of polygamy. For most of the nation (in the 1800s or now), the word
"marriage" is not defined in terms of multiple spouses at a time for
one person. Any time we try to argue the definition or original purpose of
"marriage", we argue against the eternal doctrine established in
Doctrine and Covenants 132.

In addition, you seem to have an
unstated major premise, that a definition (in this case the definition of
"marriage") may not change. Why not? What prevents society from
changing the definition of a word? I'm reminded that the word "gay"
did not even connote the idea of homosexuality. Now it seems homosexuality is
the first thing thought of with the word "gay".

By the way,
refering to comments as "silly" is an ad hominem attack.

Brother Chuck SchroederA Tropical Paradise USA, FL

April 21, 2011 10:34 a.m.

You know what makes me sick. I'll tell ya'll what makes me sick. It's stuff
like this. Like it or not Utah, this is my view. Let's start now with Michael
De Groote, Deseret News - title - "Gay marriage and reshaping
society." OK PEOPLE, "Wake up America". Why are we
"American's living in a Country "without any laws" all around
anarchists"?. What's Congress and State law makers doing to cause this?.
Even these Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven
underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks, the anarchists from Petrograd
and Moscow fled to the Ukraine. Who in OUR GOVERNMENT is putting a stranglehold
on political freedoms we always known?. Are ya'll tired yet of these person's
who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power, who
believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy, especially one who
uses violent means to overthrow the established order of The United States of
America?. Do you want to give up YOUR Holy Bible for the Anarchist Cookbook?.
How about The Book Of Mormon also, seeing Utah is the Mormon State?. It's time
to "WAKE UP AMERICA", and, do something about it.

The word "Marriage" is that word created in the
English language to signify a specific type of relationship between a man and a
woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people supporting each
other through life.

------------------

Is that what the
marriage of two companies means? I didn't realize... Or how about the marriage
of a good wine and cheese? All these phrases are used within the English
language to signify the uniting of two entities.

And why shouldn't
gays marry? They two are asking the state to recognize their expectations of
supporting each other through life. They are asking the state to grant them the
same leagl status that any other couple of Aerican citizens are presented with
when they receive their marriage certificate.

Is it that you think
they are not good enough or righteous enough to have the same privileges and
benefits that you enjoy? What is your legal reason for denying them the same
citizenship that you enjoy?

teri88Spotswood, NJ

April 21, 2011 10:25 a.m.

@trueblue87

I don't know if you are LDS, but the 11th article of
faith states:

"We claim the priviledge of worshipping the
Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience. We allow all men
that same priviledge; let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Our personal beliefs on what makes a sin a sin should not be part of
this argument, because not everyone shares these beliefs. The church itself,
according to the above AOF, states that we allow all people to believe whatever
they want. What, then, gives us the right to dictate who is allowed to marry
who, just based on what we believe to be sinful?

Lane MyerSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 10:23 a.m.

michaelitos: ". Homosexual marriage is a huge socio-political-cultural
change that affects society as a whole."

Support your statement.
Show me how much Massachusetts has changed since they adopted gay marriage in
2004. Point out how a member of the LDS church - or any church has had their
beliefs changed, has had such a cultural change that it compromises their
integrity or makes them question their own marriages and the sanctity of the
vows that they took. Can you show me one couple that has decided not to marry
because gays can also marry?

Show me proof or all you are spewing is
fear without any truth to it.

EverestAmerican Fork, UT

April 21, 2011 10:22 a.m.

Maybe "marriage" can exist with several associated adjectives:
"traditional marriage," "gay marriage," and "plural
marriage." Would that be some sort of compromise here?

Chris BSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 10:21 a.m.

I dont get why gays insist on shouting to the world about their sexual
preferences?

If someone finds out I am a heterosexual it is because
they find out, not because I'm insisting they know I like women.

Contrarily,

It is often easy to spot a gay, such as the ones who
wear tight pink shorts and britney spears tank tops at my gym.

Why?
Because they want to make sure everyone knows they are gay.

Not a
single person at the gym has even worn a "I like women" shirt to make
sur everyone knows they are straight.

For some reason they gays want
to shove their gayness in everyones face.

I'm not saying I hide my
sexuality. For example, I will hold my girlfriend's hand in public.

However, I do this because I want to hold my girlfriends hand, NOT because I
want everyone to know I am straight.

Why do the gays insist on
everyone knowing immediatley just by looking at them that they are gay?

Sank You, DoctorSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 10:08 a.m.

Uncle Charles: "No logically thinking individual can say with a straight
face that homosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior."

Are you calling the LDS church ill-logical? They admit that same sex
attraction (homosexuality) is not chosen. Do you want to stick with that line
or are you willing to learn (like the LDS church did that there are those who
did not choose this attraction?

Really???Kearns, UT

April 21, 2011 10:06 a.m.

What comes across as hateful is comparing my feelings--something that is an
innate part of me--to that of a pig, duck, horse, or moose.

VocalLocalSalt Lake, UT

April 21, 2011 9:58 a.m.

Dear Mrs. Maggie Gallagher,You say unstable families are contributing to
high crime and other social ills and yet you criticize Europe for it's small
family size when it has fewer of the very social ills (such as crime) you insist
'strong' families prevent. I have lived in an western european country and
while they do have smaller families I can also say they put their families above
anything else in their life. I also fail to see how falling populations is a
tragedy-I think in a world with limited resources that is probably beneficial
and I think it's better for society that those who are uninterested in
child-rearing not feel compelled to do so.As for same-sex marriage I see
no reason why it should have any less legitimacy than adoption. Yes, it is
ideal when the father and mother can raise their biological child but we don't
live in an ideal world-a world where not all children can stay with their
biological parents and not all parents have the innate heterosexual attraction
that would make that union a happy one.

Just TruthSaratoga Springs, UT

April 21, 2011 9:55 a.m.

Exactly! Marriage is being attacked. Gays don't want what marriage really is,
they want to change it to fit them. Unwittingly or divisively, this directly
affects natural families and their rights.

I don't care if Gays have
unions, but to accept the lie that those unions are comparable to the union
between man and woman (the basic unit set up where all children should have a
right to be born into and raised up in), is damaging to families and societies.
This article very well points out directly some causes and effects of accepting
the selfish view of Gays, to the detriment of upholding better familial
practices for society as a whole.

sjgfSouth Jordan, UT

April 21, 2011 9:55 a.m.

So many silly comments.

The word "Marriage" is that word
created in the English language to signify a specific type of relationship
between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people
supporting each other through life.

It does not mean anything else.
It doesn't mean a relationship between a pig and a duck. It does not mean a
relationship between a horse and a moose. It doesn't mean a relationship between
a man and another man. It doesn't mean a relationship between a woman and
another woman. It is a simple matter of definition.

The LGBT
community wants to change the definition of this word. And they do it through
telling people who want it to continue to mean the same thing that they are
"hateful" or "bigoted." What is hateful about believing that
a word has a certain meaning?

michaelitosSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 9:51 a.m.

@Mulder21Thank you for proving Ms. Gallagher's point and serving as the
impetus of her fight. As you so hatefully hurl the term "bigotry" at
her (and me for that matter), you prove her point that this fight is worth
fighting. Homosexual marriage is a huge socio-political-cultural change that
affects society as a whole.

I'm glad Ms. Gallagher has taken up this
fight, and I support her in it. As Brian Brown said, "Marriage is a public
good. If you change the definition of marriage, you dont just change it for the
gay married couple down the street, you change it for everyone. If gay marriage
is allowed, then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and
the majority of Americans views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination.
It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views
on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that Im part of
is treated in the law as bigoted. And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not
true.

Thank you for proving his point.

Really???Kearns, UT

April 21, 2011 9:44 a.m.

Shaden,

Please tell me how the comments others make is suppression of
religion? All I can say is I am tired of being made to feel less than the
"normal" people of the world. I have value, but these organizations
like NOM make people believe I don't.

trueblue87Provo, UT

April 21, 2011 9:31 a.m.

@ teri88

you said the only reason you support gay marriage is because
you believe sexual relationships outside of marriage are a sin. acting upon
homosexual feelings is a sin. so by your reasoning you are promoting one sin to
avoid another sin?

TruthseekerSLO, CA

April 21, 2011 9:30 a.m.

Gallagher can repeat the same stuff over and over again, the points which were
made in the "Six Consequences" defense of Prop 8. Did the Prop
8 defense team present any evidence in court as to harm? NoBecause
it wouldn't stand up in court. In court one has to present factual evidence,
not just theories or beliefs.

The fact is, Catholic Adoption
services, functioning as a STATE supported agency placed at least 2 children
with same-sex couples. The trouble began when it was made public and the
higher-ups in the Catholic Churh became aware of it. The Catholic church can
still participate in adodption services as does the LDS church in MA, without
state-funding.

Amen DannyNobody has destroyed the
"sanctity of marriage" more than heterosexuals. But it is much
easier to target a minority population using discrimination than look in the
mirror.

ShadenLincoln, NE

April 21, 2011 9:07 a.m.

I am tired of reading these articles and then the subsequent comments...these
discussion boards are always hijacked by gay marriage advocates (who incessantly
comment with the same fallacious responses), and anyone who supports traditional
marriage is afraid to join the debate for fear of appearing naive.

I
for one understand and agree with the majority of what Gallagher is arguing and
appreciate that she is being covered here in the DN. I believe that this topic
is the defining debate in public discourse today, and that too often those who
are pro-marriage are actually marginalized as bigots or, essentially, the
equivalent of racists. I have been in a doctoral program for years now, and as
an active, conservative LDS member who supports marriage between a man and a
woman, I am consistently demonized and seen only as some uninformed religious
fundamentalist. This is the rhetorical tactic of the pro-gay marriage
group--marginalize and shun anyone who disagrees with them by branding them as
bigots.

This is not true. This is hypocritical. It is a fallacy to
equate the gay marriage debate with the civil rights movement, for example. This
is blatant suppression of religious freedom, tragically.

Uncle CharlesWhere freedom and liberty reign, utah

April 21, 2011 9:04 a.m.

-----

The lady is absolutely correct in her comments.

The
embracing of homosexuality by our society is nuts. It shows just how far we have
fallen for the tricks of Satan and his followers.

There is
absolutely nothing virtuous, lovely or of good report in embracing this
self-destructive, family and society killing behavior.

No logically
thinking individual can say with a straight face that homosexuality is nothing
more than a chosen behavior.

I hope more people continue to stand up
for what is right in order to keep the family strong and reverse the perverted
trend of our society which dismisses all things moral and of value.

xscribeColorado Springs, CO

April 21, 2011 9:03 a.m.

@Mulder21: And to continue your thought, I'm sure someone out there has the
time to come up with examples of acts that go against their beliefs were
ignored. This is singling out a particular group, plain and simple. Yet we let
crackheads and others - I can think of women who have multiple kids by varying
fathers, who are nowhere to be seen - have babies without blinking and eye, but
don't let those gays invade marriage. What is marriage? It's a legal document
that means nothing, except when that imminent divorce occurs. This all leads me
back to a prior story and post, about what is the heirarchy of sin. If this is
a sin, so is swearing, so is speeding and breaking the laws of the land, so is
lying, cheating, stealing. Yet, somehow, those are more easily forgiven it
seems, and can be repeated over and over without consequence. No one sees the
absolute humor in all of this nonsense?

TekakaromatagiDhahran, Saudi Arabia

April 21, 2011 8:57 a.m.

@Mulder21: People have been fired and black-listed because of their religious
views and prejudice for what they might do. (The University of Toledo in Ohio
is being sued for this.)This is like 1950's McCarthyism. Instead of
communism being not-PC, now religion is not-PC. Allowing SSM gives a blunt
legal instrument to a lot of people who are xenophobic to religion.

Tekakaromatagi

working classSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 8:55 a.m.

As a father I love my children- they are my own flesh and blood. This gal is
implying that I need some sort of social pressure to feel my responsbilities.
No. It's much too biological to need this stuff. As she points out, one of the
main drivers toward marriage, perhaps THE main, is the desire to procreate.
Aboslutely true. How does gay marriage endanger this? It doesn't. And yes,
let's not forget how biggoted we once were about interracial marriage. I grew
up in Utah in the 50's - I remember how it was. The views expressed by the
establishment in those days is an embarassment to the present establishment.
Memo to establishment: you can be wrong - believe it or not!

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

April 21, 2011 8:53 a.m.

RockOn | 7:42 a.m. April 21, 2011

"Gay is a learned behavior.
There is no gay gene."

===

Will you please clarify
for me who exactly it was that I "learned" the behavior from? I'd be
more than grateful, you see, both of my parents are heterosexual, my siblings
are all heterosexual, my grandparents are also heterosexual. Yes, I do have
glbt cousins, a great aunt, and other extended family who are glbt, but none of
them were around to teach me how to be gay, so I would really, really, like to
know who to blame for the unwanted lessons.

MaudineSLC, UT

April 21, 2011 8:51 a.m.

Gallagher's absolutely right about the value and importance of marriage -
however she fails to explain why that doesn't apply to same-sex marriage.

Same-sex couples have children - why shouldn't those coyotes and those
children have the benefits of marriage?

If you want a culture that
values marriage as a place to raise children, and make sure all families with
children are married - or at least have the option to be.

Idaho CougMeridian, Idaho

April 21, 2011 8:51 a.m.

Same sex attraction is genetic. Most estimates are that no more than 10% of the
population at most are born with this attraction. Seeing, reading about or
knowing gay individuals will not make a straight person gay. Sexual attraction
is probably the strongest natural urge we have. Many same sex couples have
raised children in homes that are every bit as supportive and loving as healthy
traditional families. Statistics also show that children from same sex parent
homes are gay at the same rate as the national average. Same sex attraction will
not go away no matter what we say or do. It is time we allow them the same
rights and respect as all citizens.

Therefore, I simply do not
understand why so many are focusing on same sex relationships or marriage as the
threat to traditional marriages and families. the real threats are divorce,
pornography which is a major driver for divorces and unhappy marriages, children
born out of wedlock, and deadbeat dads. NONE of which have ANYTHING to do with
same sex relationships and marriages.

Zack TacorinSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 8:49 a.m.

RockOn,

You wrote, "Gay is a learned behavior. There is no gay
gene. Marriage is a choice".

What is your source for this? I
suggest you listen to Dr. William Bradshaw of BYUs Department of Microbiology
and Molecular Biology (go to the Mormon Stories web site, it's podcast #191).
You may find the scientific research does not support your claim.

You
also said it's proven, "that a child with a mother and a father is better
off than a child with one parent or one without either a mother or a father.
Both is essential. The proof is timeless and overwhelming." What research
can you cite that indicates that having two mothers or two fathers is
detrimental to children?

nanniehuWendover, UT

April 21, 2011 8:38 a.m.

Amen to the author of this article. She wasn't trying to vilify homosexuals or
lesbians, she was defending and promoting the valid and reasonable argument for
traditional marriage. If you choose to act on your sexual preferences, that is
your business, but children need both a father and a mother in the home.

Sneaky JimmyBay Area, CA

April 21, 2011 8:23 a.m.

There are some astounding comments being posted today. I am wondering:When
did governments role become to perpetuate the species?Stopping people with
same-sex attraction from living morally is saving the soul of America?

Happy Valley HereticOrem, UT

April 21, 2011 8:21 a.m.

Tekakaromatagi said:In this young man's world there is no reason why
someone would know their father.

But a gay marriage doesn't produce
children to be abandoned-heterosexual relationships do. Please explain how
this relates to gay marriage?

SLC Watch: You said, "There is
only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That is to
perpetuate the species." Actually it's all about Tax revenue, but
besides that we allow old people to marry, we don't force people to have
children, and that "be fruitful and multiply, they still got half the
scripture right, the multiply part was when few were on the earth, I think
there's enough starving children in the world that die every day, who would beg
to differ with the rabbit mentality.

Zack TacorinSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 8:18 a.m.

To milojthatch - I disagree with you regarding same sex marriage but want to
commend you for your decorum and respect. Thank you for starting the comments
with such civility!

To Ethan Smith - I agree with your points about
homosexuality occurring naturally in humans as well as other species and with
the idea that the evidence does not demonstrate same sex marriage harms the
institution of marriage. However, I disagree on one point. I think technically,
if there are genetic factors involved in homosexuality, then they could be
passed to offspring by a lesbian mother procreating with her own ova. It
probably wouldn't be common but is likely to happen.

To slcwatch - It
seems to me that government involvement in marriage extends well beyond
procreation. What is your source for claiming government involvement is solely
for procreation? Even if that were true, why would we as a society be limited to
this even if it were the original purpose? Besides, if we extend your reasoning
to its logical conclusion, shouldn't we exclude infertile heterosexuals from
marriage?

RidgelyMagna, UT

April 21, 2011 8:18 a.m.

This isn't "It's a Wonderful Life" where "Every time a bell rings
an Angel gets its wings". If a gay couple gets married a heterosexual
marriage doesn't automatically explode!

If
heterosexual couples want a religious wedding ceremony in their church or
Temple, that's OK. No one is stopping them. No one is forcing ANY church to
perform same sex weddings [It's been legal and Massachusetts and Canada for
years and yet the LDS Temples there still have the lights on].

McWest Jordan, UT

April 21, 2011 8:17 a.m.

@Really???Because you are not acting upon your feelings of same sex
attraction you are not immoral. You are not evil. You are not selfish or
worthless to society. I don't know whether or not you were born with same sex
attraction. It doesn't matter if you were or not. What matters is what you
choose to do now. It looks like you have chosen to live a chaste and moral life
because you love the church. I respect that. Our church leaders respect that.
We know it must be hard and we should never make it harder by treating you
badly. You will be so blessed for not sucumbing to this temptation.

Hang in there. Forgive those who say things that hurt. They don't mean to
hurt you personally. They are just concerned for the doctrine on families as
given to us in the Proclamation. The family unit is so important to our Father
in Heaven, more important than any other organization in the church. We are
asked to defend traditional marriage and promote it as the fabric of society.

I wish you well. Your example is of great worth.

michaelitosSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 8:14 a.m.

@SchwaGay marriage would indeed affect people outside of that union. We're
dealing with major societal change here. It permeates our culture and affects us
all. Ms. Gallagher points out that the major reason for marriage is to join
mother and father in a bond to raise children. Changing that definition would
represent a huge socio/political/cultural shift!

To quote Brian
Brown, "Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of
marriage, you dont just change it for the gay married couple down the street,
you change it for everyone. If gay marriage is allowed, then the state is
essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans
views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination. It profoundly affects me if
my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It
profoundly affects me if the church that Im part of is treated in the law as
bigoted. And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true."

This
affects us all!

Mulder21Salt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 8:13 a.m.

From the article it gives the following four points:

1.
Graduate students are being kicked out of marriage counseling programs because
they are unwilling to personally counsel gay couples on how to sustain their
relationships.

2. A physician in California was penalized
for not artificially impregnating a lesbian woman.

3. In
Massachusetts and Washington D.C., Catholic Charities was driven out of the
adoption business because it refused to place children with gay couples.

4. In Illinois, Catholic, evangelical and Lutheran adoption
and foster care agencies are being probed for discrimination

All I
can say is, I think these points are 100% correct and people should be penalized
for discriminating against anyone for any reason. That includes race, gender,
age, and yes SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I am glad that there are some people in this
country with enough common sense to fight bigotry!

AceFarmington, UT

April 21, 2011 8:13 a.m.

To "Really???" @ 6:43: Not everyone thinks like that. Just do your
best--that's all anyone can do. Hang in there.

michaelitosSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 8:07 a.m.

Well said Maggie!!! Keep fighting for what's right!!!

xscribeColorado Springs, CO

April 21, 2011 7:44 a.m.

Now, DN, let's have balanced coverage and have another story by a pro-gay
marriage group. Most of the article I can agree with, but this is just another
one of your stories that belongs on the opinion page, not the front page where
it is written to incite. Unless, of course, you get a kick out of that, which
there is evidence that you do, as I've seen inciteful stories stay on the post
for a long time, and sometimes go away and then return. Balance, that's the way
to be a journalist.

RockOnSpanish Fork, UT

April 21, 2011 7:42 a.m.

Gay is a learned behavior. There is no gay gene. Marriage is a choice and a
proven commodity that a child with a mother and a father is better off than a
child with one parent or one without either a mother or a father. Both is
essential. The proof is timeless and overwhelming.

As to the
mindless idea of "live and let live", do so at societies' peril.
Gallahger is right on when she says this is akin to the racial debate where
racists were marginalized and put down. In that case it was justified. In this
"choice" discussion it is not. Race is a product of birth. Sexuality
is a product of choices. I won't stand by and let your poor choices harm my
society.

DannySalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 7:42 a.m.

My Gay marriage of 17 years has lasted longer then a lot of straight marriage.
So if you want to fix marriage start with the ones your trying to protect. Stop
divorce is where you should be putting your time and money.

teri88Spotswood, NJ

April 21, 2011 7:41 a.m.

I am LDS, in a "traditional" marrige but I have always been in favor
of gay marriage, for the simple reason that I believe sexual relationships
without marriage is a sin. You can not have your cake and eat it too, you can't
say that gay couples cannot be together without the benefit of marriage but OH,
you aren't allowed to marry.There are many traditional couples who marry
and either can't have children or choose not to have children. Are we going to
outlaw them too? A gay couple may not be able to have children in the
traditional way, but they can use infertility treatments to get pregnant if they
are women. They can adopt, and many couples I've seen adopt the special needs
children that no one else seems to want. What children need are loving parents
that want their children and raise them to be productive, happy members of
society. Gay couples are fully capable of that. Lots of straight couples get
their children through adoption or surrogatesy are they any less a family?

LagomorphSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 7:35 a.m.

Gallagher: "Only societies that have learned how to successfully manage
the procreative implications of male/female attraction have survived."

Did she provide examples of such failed societies? I can think of none
that failed because they stopped reproducing, except maybe for Shakers. I can
think of many societies that failed because they did not succesfully manage
procreation, but not for underpopulation. These are societies that could not
rein in reproduction and overexploited their resource base to the point they
could not survive.

SLCWatch: "The protections, benefits and
rights bestowed by government are only to protect, facilitate and encourage
procreation of the next generation.This is as simple as it gets."

Please explain Utah Code 30-1-1(2)(b), which mandates infertility as a
condition for government sanctioned marriage. The legislative history behind
this section of the code makes it clear that the legislators thought love and
relationships to be valid considerations for marriage policy (at least for some
people). It's not so simple after all.

TekakaromatagiDhahran, Saudi Arabia

April 21, 2011 7:25 a.m.

@SLC Watch: You said, "There is only one reason for government to be
involved in marriage at all. That is to perpetuate the species." That
might be one reason, but there are others. Marriage fights poverty.

One time I went to a youth detention center to tell stories. One of the
inmates there questioned me about a story involving a young man who was required
to fight his father in a battle. His question was, "How did he know it was
his father?" It made me wonder if I had left out something. But I
hadn't.

In this young man's world there is no reason why someone
would know their father. That is one of the underlying reasons that he had
broken the law enough times that the justice system finally opened an eye and
sent him to a youth detention center.

Failing to support marriage
will creat more young men like this one. That is why I support it.

Tekakaromatagi

SpringvillepoetSpringville, UT

April 21, 2011 7:10 a.m.

As a man, I find the following very offensive:

"If we want
fathers to be there for their children and the mothers of their children,
biology alone won't do it. We need a cultural mechanism to attach fathers to the
mother/child bond."

I am married, and a father of three. My
marriage is not the thing which attaches me to the "mother/child
bond." Whenever I look at one of my children, I feel a biological tie to
them. I am their father, and even if I was not married to their mother, I would
still be their father--- biologically and emotionally.

In telling
me I need to be corralled into marriage for the sake of the survival of the
species, Maggie Gallagher minimizes my worth at the same time she tries to
articulate my necessity.

Which am I? A necessary component to the
healthy and successful family unit, or some callous philanderer, who would
wander from woman to woman without any regard for my children if not being
"forced" to marry?

LivingstoneOrem, UT

April 21, 2011 6:56 a.m.

It seems that our presumption that population should grow and keep growing is
never questioned. In W. Europe, where religion is on a sharp decline and quality
of life is the highest, birth rates are down and life expectancy is up. The
danger here is not that Europeans will disappear but will disappear against
immigrants and their birth rates, and the culture will degrade. This is where
the fear is; this notion that we need to promote births of new children is
founded in part on latent racism. In the United States, we only sustain our way
of life through quick expansion and re-investment, and we would have to make
certain changes in the consumer culture and economy if birth-rates slowed down.
This may be a good thing. That somehow we should keep having children not just
to replace each person who dies (this already happens in Europe) but to provide
more working bodies to support the aging populations' quality of life seems to
be the underlying need for more children. High birth rates, like that in Utah,
is a tax on government and spending, and is a huge problem that is never
addressed.

Really???Kearns, UT

April 21, 2011 6:43 a.m.

This topic makes me sad. According to others on here I chose to be gay. I chose
to destroy the natural family unit. I chose to be misunderstood. I chose to be
lonely because I can't honestly have a loving relationship with somebody of the
same gender. I chose to have this struggle with same sex attraction because I
didn't pray hard enough for 20 years asking help for me to change. I chose to
sit alone at church--the church I love--because being around other men like me
is wrong.

I am immoral. I am evil. I am destroying America. I am
selfish and only care about myself. Please continue printing more articles
telling me how worthless to society I am. I didn't get enough of this kind of
treatment in junior high and high school. I need to be put in my place.

awsomeron1Oahu, HI

April 21, 2011 5:02 a.m.

I think that we are far far from being in danger of losing our Society because
we do not produce enough babies.

If we STOPED ABORTION we would have
more Babies. Stop Killing Unborn Childern.

Advanced Societys in part
control proverty buy limiting population, through birth control and Abortion. If
you have one or two kids you go to Disneyland, if you have 8 kids you go to the
Local Park, even if you live Next to Disneyland.

There is a need for
a younger generation to work and pay taxes in order to support the old.

Do you want One or Two kids a working outside the home mother and stuff. Or do
you want 6 kids and a stay at home mom/dad. They call people who work different
shifts "divorced".

I would not want a Wife with 2 jobs,
work outside the home and taking care of Kids and housse and evan remotely
expect her to be friendly towards the end of the day, or early in the
morning.

People with less kids have more simple fact of life.

Gay people are a different issue. Being so does not mke them bad
parents. Or us better.

cornetmustichWashington, CT

April 21, 2011 4:18 a.m.

Marriage is firstly a civil and contractual matter in America, where marriage
licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls or mosques or
temples.

Period!

Onward, Joe Mustich, CT Justice of the
Peace, USA.

Kudos to CT for supporting SSM since 2008, and life goes
on as hundreds of couples come to CT to wed from all across the country!

The marriage cops need to retire and place some bingo in the middle of
the nearest desert......retire oldsters....

Dr. PertzLindon, UT

April 21, 2011 2:28 a.m.

"No logically thinking individual can say with a straight face that
heterosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior."

How
does that sound Uncle Charlie? Sounds nuts to me too. I don't remember
choosing to be attracted to my wife. Did you have to choose to be sexually
attracted to yours?

Maggie, along with many in this state, continue
to miss the point. Marriage is about more than making babies. It's about
making a monogamous, loving commitment to another human being. Otherwise,
nobody above the age of bearing children, according to her, should be marrying
either. THAT's what I call nuts.

SchwaSouth Jordan, UT

April 21, 2011 2:01 a.m.

Why can't you just leave gay people alone? A gay couple's life doesn't have any
bearing on whether or not your marriage will succeed. Live and let live.

EDMCastle Valley, Utah

April 21, 2011 1:59 a.m.

Good for Ms. Gallagher. Who doesn't support and respect the right of responsible
individuals to get married and raise a family?

But Gallagher's tired,
old, irrational arguments just won't win the day. Allowing gay marriage can only
promote the institution of marriage, not diminish it in any way. And if fewer
couples are having babies, it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Gallagher laments references to bigotry, but we have to call it what it is.
Sure, it hurts to recognize it in ourselves and in our family and friends who
"love and support" our gay loved ones, but yet don't mind denying them
the same rights we enjoy, or the comfort of knowing they love who they love
without scorn. It's not easy to stand against religious beliefs about
homosexuality, but it's the right thing to do.

And I'm sorry for her
analogy and reference to racists. I'm squarely against racism, and have no
trouble treating racists as "second class citizens." We don't have to
accommodate racism - or bigotry of any sort.

SLCWatchSalt Lake City, UT

April 21, 2011 12:57 a.m.

There is only one reason for government to be involved in marriage at all. That
is to perpetuate the species. No other reason. Homosexual relations are not
biologically productive. Hence there is no reason to facilitate or legitimize a
government role. From governments point of view it's not about
relationships, it's not about love, it's not about scientific manipulation, it's
not about civil rights or equal treatment. It's solely about perpetuating the
species. The protections, benefits and rights bestowed by government are only
to protect, facilitate and encourage procreation of the next generation.This is as simple as it gets.

Ethan SmithHighland, UT

April 21, 2011 12:12 a.m.

I will get on board the anti-Gay campaign as soon as there is concrete evidence
from third-party, peer-reviewed studies that supports the notion that children
raised in GLBT situations suffer in some important way that children raised in
NOM-approved marriages don't.

Otherwise, this is all just shameless
lobbying on behalf of an LDS front organization to get government to violate the
establishment clause of the First Amendment. Homosexuality is a natural
phenomenon not contained to the human species, and isn't something we need to
worry about on a societal level (for the simple reason that it is not capable of
direct genetic transmission--by its very nature).

Institutional
change doesn't equate to behavior change in the population. Outlaw homosexual
marriage or adoption if you like; there will still be gay "uncles" and
partners. Recognize this and deal with it instead of unquestioningly accepting
dogmatic opinions that have no basis in fact.

milojthatchSandy, UT

April 21, 2011 12:07 a.m.

Well said! As much as I hate seeing it this way, this is a war in our society
and the prize is the very soul of American society itself. I personally worry
about the direction this war has been taking lately with attacks on Prop 8, the
Obama Admin's decision in not defend the Defense of Marriage Act. That said, I
continue to support people on both sides that choose to be more civil about
things then militant. At the end of the day, regardless of what side you are
on, we are still children of God, all of us.